Willravel

UPDATE: Manufactured Violence: Pushing People Over the Edge | Media Matters for America

Here we're provided with further evidence that the United States' greatest terrorism threat doesn't come from Muslims, but rather the radical right-wing. Despite fervent claims from the right that this long, long line of domestic terrorists who happen to all be right-wingers are simply isolated incidents, crazy people the motivations of which can't be linked to political ideology, this man's motivations align all too perfectly with those present in the conservative media: the mosque at ground zero, abortion, homosexuality, and nationalism. In fact, this man's hateful rant could have appeared word for word on Glenn Beck. There can be no reasonable doubt that this man is a right-winger and there can be no doubt that this man's political beliefs, married with the political climate and his own emotional instabilities, were on course to result in bitter tragedy.

Moose, like the dozens if not hundreds in the last few decades, represents a clear and persistent danger and begs more than a few questions, imho:

Do you recognize the pattern of right-wing extremism?
What does this pattern in right-wing violence and potential violence mean to you?
Do you feel more in danger from radical Arab or Islamic terrorism or from right-wing terrorism?
What can legally be done to stem the tide of hatred without violating the Constitution?
Where are the moderate conservatives on this issue? Why aren't there, instead of apologists, prominent right wingers lambasting the media and GOP for fostering extremism?

dksuddeth

why is it that those who are willing to take to violence to protect freedom are considered extremists or right wing radicals?

---------- Post added at 06:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:42 PM ----------

here's an idea.....try not violating the constitutional rights when you force your agenda down the throats of people that want to be left alone

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Derwood

Violence violates people's rights too

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

Willravel

Who's rights was he protecting by planning on murdering innocent people, dk? I'm serious. Is he really protecting freedom by taking innocent American lives? What freedom is being protected by blowing up a Mosque or a Planned Parenthood?
Bombing innocent people is the very definition of not leaving people alone.

Charlatan

Sorry, but how is building a Mosque at ground zero violating people's rights (note: they aren't even building a new one there, it's a community centre). If anything this nut job, by his own set of rules, should be supporting the right to build a mosque.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

dksuddeth

here's my problem with the broad brush.

you want to take a handful of idiots who hate muslims and use THAT as your example of right wing extremism instead of isolated incidents, yet let me throw up 2 dozen examples of police misconduct that occur in two days and broad brush all police as bullying psycopaths, and half or more of you are adamant that they are just isolated incidents. but i guess you can all call that false equivalence and stick to your talking points.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

First off, what does the thread topic have to do with crooked cops? This thread is about a pattern of extremist right-wing related violence and attempted violence. I don't think it's unfair of me to expect for people posting in this thread to include their thoughts about that particular topic.

Second, yes, there are a lot of cops who are bullying psychopaths. A lot of cops are high on their own farts, have no clue what civil rights are, let alone respect for them, and some are more deserving of prison time than the people they catch. That said, I do not expect an abortion clinic or mosque to be blown up by a crooked cop. I've not seen a specific pattern of cops committing or attempting to commit acts of domestic terrorism for political ends.

Whether you intended it or not, your first post in this thread defended an attempted mosque and abortion clinic bomber as someone protecting freedom and that's beyond the pale. If you have something to say about crooked cops, start a thread and I'll be glad to have a discussion about it, but for the time being, I respectfully suggest a bit of introspection about your response to this particular topic. It's one thing to understand that there are extreme circumstances in which violence may be necessary, but entirely another to think that the rational response to having philosophical differences about issues like freedom of religion and a woman's right to choose is the murder of innocent people. That has exactly nothing to do with revolution and everything to do with terror.

And let me make one thing crystal clear: if there's a revolution in the United States and on one side is people who blow up mosques and Planned Parenthood clinics because they're either too stupid or too brainwashed to understand that freedom of privacy and religion are fundamental Constitutional rights, expect me to be on the opposing side.

dksuddeth

I believe your reading comprehension is much better than that. I defended nothing. I attacked the accusation that all violence or intended violence is 'right wing'.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

The intended violence I specifically referenced in the OP is clearly right-wing. Anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-Muslim, and pro-nationalism are undeniably conservative American right wing ideologies. You know that.

You're a libertarian, so while you may not like abortion, you're probably okay with the government minding it's own business on that topic. You also probably have no problem with the government getting out of the marriage business, which means private lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender marriages are coo with youl. You are a strong proponent of the Constitution, so you're certainly cool with Muslims going about their lives worshiping Allah and reading the Qur'an. You're a nationalist, of course, but I don't think you're an American (read: white, Christian American) exceptionalist like the attempted terrorist in the OP. In short, you should be on my side in this. Donny Eugene Mower has clearly thrown in his lot with the neoconservative authoritarians. He doesn't understand or accept religious freedom, he does not understand or accept a woman's or lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender's right to privacy.

If you want to regale me with tales of recent right-wingers who were justified in their acts of violence or attempted violence, I'd be glad to discuss the merits of those situations, but this thread is about Donny Eugene Mower, who is just the latest in a long string of authoritarian neoconservative bigoted terrorists and attempted terrorists.

WhoaitsZ

any extremist scares me but the right wing has always terrified me most.

some lefts can be idiotic but overall the violence level seems to be much, much more extreme than the left. even groups like the Weathermen (as far as I know) never hurt anyone.

The ultimate un-American stance is to push your ideals on others. If you can't have tolerance for other people you need to GTFO. people came here so they could start a new unbiased life. Anybody who thinks a Muslim is a terrorist by default they fail at life and are simply ignorant motherfuckers.

the media rarely brings hate groups to attention because they are threatened with people like Murdoch and it doesn't sell as well as evil Muslims.

sorry this post is kind of all over the place. busy and distracted.

urville

I would say that there is a point to pointing out the knee jerk reaction that violence in these situations is "right wing". However certain elements of the right or right based groups have sanctioned such action however thinly veiled.

Having said that, they often leave behind or shout their allegiance at the top of their lungs. It doesn't help that all of the violence is against things the right are against and the left are for. Let's just say you argue that on any basis, there is the fact that there is no shortage of right wing people saying they will do exactly that if they either dont get their way, the election doesnt go their way, etc. All of the people who want to kill abortion doctors or bomb them are admittedly right wing. So...

Does it mean they are? No. Does it give us a reasonable level of plausibility that it likely is them? I think so, furthermore I feel reasonably safe assuming so.

Just my nickel

FoolThemAll

Personally, I'm more scared of common criminals with no organized agenda rather than the extremists amongst Muslims, cops, or right-wingers.

And since the topic's already been noted with the usual false dichotomy attached, I'll make my own note: there's nothing inherently un-libertarian about pro-life/anti-choice/anti-abortion political stances. Nothing. To insist that there is, is to hold your hands over your eyes and ignore the most important part of the debate.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Baraka_Guru

Is this because libertarians believe in the right of the fetus to exist? Do libertarians consider the fetus an individual?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

citadel

The problem isn't what "wing" the people are in, the problem is that they're violent extremists. Their actions make them bad, not their political theory. History is full of violent nutcases of every creed imaginable.

Me too.

Willravel

You're suggesting a rather large coincidence. You're saying the pattern of domestic terrorism and attempted domestic terrorism recently is just coincidentally right-wing? Yes, a few have been apolitical or have been so skewed that they can't be linked to a political ideology, but I've not seen any Al Gore supporters or Obama voters trying to blow anything up or shoot anyone for clearly political reasons. Other than that nut that shot up the Discovery Channel, I can't think of an example in my lifetime (dob 1983).

citadel

I'm suggesting that Christian Identity and white supremacists don't vote Republican either.

urville

He's saying they are all about personal freedom not ideology.

Sure over the great span of history. This discussion to me is about recently here in the US. Excluding one period in the 60's in which both sides were flirting with the bare edge of acceptable violence against each other, and which i consider more a of a civil cold war and not to be counted, theres an overwhelming amount of evidence that nearly all the political violence it is right wing. I can find examples of left wing violence, just not really political. ALF and other extreme green or animal rights groups... Frankly too, when you consider the 60's, it was really just a couple of groups like the weathermen etc, and I believe there was little actual violence. Just idle threats. All of the heavy hitters identified themselves as right sided though including Kazinsky and McVeigh.

---------- Post added at 02:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:50 AM ----------

Oh, I dont know about white supremacists, but Christians definitely overwhelmingly vote republican. This is always one of the things I find ridiculous about conservatives. All this claim to less government and letting you live and thats the first party to tell you how to live and allow governing, legislation and laws based on morals rather than ethics. Add to that the ridiculous idea of people who in one breath invoke jesus and in the next invoke a party and support its ideals that do the exact opposite of what he taught. there are exceptions sure, but if we're talking what the obvious majority you can pretty much count on? Yeah thats well known.

citadel

The Unabomber wasn't right wing, the guy didn't even have a toilet. McVeigh was a rabid racist who disavowed the right wing for being too centric.

Not Christians, I was talking about Christian Identity. The difference between the two is like the difference between Glenn Beck and the terrorists listed in that article.

pan6467

I think the problem is we have people on the radio and "news" programs that sell a theme of if you can't win with your views violently take back the country. An attitude and all but directly saying: "Let us take people's apathy for government spin it around OUR ideals and sell OUR beliefs in a way that makes the listeners angry at those we want them to be angry at. If someone takes it to an extreme it helps us. It may stir up some controversy but our ratings will go over the top as people will want to hear first hand how bad we are."

That saddest part, in my eyes, is that these radicals will use Jesus' name in most cases as some warped excuse for blatant planned out murder of innocents. And the irony is that these people talk about losing rights while at the same time respecting no one else's legal rights.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Charlatan

Is that not the definition of a right wing extremist? If not, what is it?

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

urville

Yes he was.. I've read the manifesto, his whole shtick was that everyone is a leftist being coddled and coddling others, and the leftists are destroying society with this, their technology, and it goes on and on. Thats just first chapter stuff. He's on the right.

My uncle says the same crap without bombing people, lol. "Oh, we let the stupid people live who should have never made it" I tell him thats called progress, besides you dont believe in evolution. Then he makes me leave.

Think about that. What McVeigh was saying is essentially calling them RINOs while considering himself a true conservative. So, thats right wing. it may not all agree, but its right wing.... Man, give me a dollar for evey conservative who complains about affirmative action, and behind closed doors says far worse about gays, women, blacks and I would be well off, but you give me the same for every liberal who has, and I'd might owe a few dollars.

I kinda get what your saying, but kind of not.. Can you explain the difference better because to me Glenn beck is an extremist, and what he does all day is radicalize people into his brand of extremism. So to me, i dont see the difference you wanted me to. In fact I find them somewhat similar. Beck is to them as an extreme Imam is to his followers, he's just ambiguous and careful because he's here whereas the Imam can be more verbose. He's in that camp of people like Palin saying ambiguous things like reload and putting targets on people. If it looks like a dollar and buys me food, its a dollar.

citadel

Yes. Key word being extremist. Not every Muslim is a fundamentalist terrorist, not every right winger is a violent, racist white supremacist.

I've only read excerpts from his manifesto, it's a tough read. The guy didn't sit around listening to the radio to get pumped up before packing explosives into a cigar box though. He may have been right leaning, but he was way out there, and pushing an agenda akin to the Amish (by a different means though).

Again though, he wouldn't have had a McCain/Palin bumper sticker on his rented Uhaul. The two are at totally opposite ends of the spectrum.

Sorry, I won't make payments for imagined statements that no one can prove.

There's not much extreme about the guy, he's on a major news network (not Al Jazeera either). He panders to a crowd that has next to nothing in common with the various terrorists listed above. It's not like he's out fundraising for the Montana Freeman or the Patriot movement. He's not even that extreme, just a little right of left leaning folks. The guys you're all so afraid of probably pay rapt attention to the teachings of William Pierce or Adolf Hitler.

Willravel

Ah, so you think Christian Identity folks vote Democrat. You think they vote pro-choice? You think they vote separation between church and state? You think they vote to keep prayers out of school and the 10 Commandments out of courthouses? You think they vote for gay rights?

And you think white supremacists vote Demeocrat, apparently. Do you think they put their check next to Barack Obama to be the president of the United States? You think they vote for affirmative action?

Honestly, I don't know what you're thinking.

citadel

No. I doubt they vote at all. They're trying to bring down the US government, living cloistered lives and preparing for the next great race war. They don't recognize the authority you and I do.

That makes two of us.

Willravel

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that these people don't vote at all? You really don't think white supremacists came out in droves to vote against a half-black man?

citadel

I think the crazies you linked have all shown themselves to be reclusive, often living in their own twisted communities. I don't doubt that a few crusty old farts with lingering feelings of hatred from the 50's and 60's came out to vote against Obama.

I can't imagine why the guys who resort to planting explosive devices would think checking a box on a slip of paper in the local high school gymnasium was worth their time.

urville

Different degrees, not ends. its all on the same end, the right end. For me I cant make the distinction that just because they wouldnt have a sticker or listen to the shows it makes it different. Right is right, your either there or you arent. When these politicians AND pundits like Beck play these games where they make suggestive statements well... people just as dangerous as both those men, no matter where on the right they are, start thinking their being asked or sanctioned to act.

Oh, haha, i can prove it. your welcome to come out and hang around anytime you want. I have a whole state of that going on, they dont even try to hide it unless a camera is around, lol. When they think everyones on the same team, holy crap the things they say and they are ALL for these politicians and they BELIEVE their being asked and that these people think just like them. Thats not coincidence guy, thats good salesmanship. you dont have to pay for anything, I've already got a check right here.

Again, beck is just a another flavor, he's like extremism light, all the danger half the evidence. Actually i've heard beck talk about the new future of America in which the small businessman and farmer rule and how they need to take it back by any means necessary. This was during the "not my america cry sessions" and that is close to a mirror of a mussolini speech made not long after they joined up with germany. I just happened to be in a hiostory course covering WWII at the time, man I had a field day with that on Facebook. Again, i dont see your distinction. I see carefully played and dangerous wordplay designed to incite fervor and it results in actions.

citadel

All those cited examples above weren't easily impressionable people. They were rock solid in their beliefs, unchanging. Some rich guy with a microphone didn't align them with the Aryan Nation and buy them a chemistry set.

I don't remember CNN acting as Bush's brassiere during his presidency. If we want to draw WW2 parallels though, we could start with a leader talking about bringing change to the people while setting up his own youth brigade...

urville

IMO, They are a part of the recognized right wing extremism. Which is a growing and IMO sanctioned threat.

Right is closer to fascism than progressivism/left is.

to answer the OP questions btw:

I've never been a conservative fan and this trend doesnt help, but I do think its high time they began being forced by their own hands to own their real and true agendas/actions/ideals.

I feel a far more real and present threat of right wing violence. If I could move right now...

Education and social/economic change for the youth. Big time.

Because cleverly in the conservative parties unity is everything, you comply or your ousted. Ultimately no matter what is said, your either on board or not in the club lest the bloggers get you.